[Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23: (with COMMENT)
"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 17 January 2017 13:05 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BC11293E1; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:05:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148465831000.31986.8406297543964675711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:05:10 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/gsOgn7NKwtvHyP6aXLUuobyqEAQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall@ietf.org, allison.mankin@gmail.com, ecrit@ietf.org, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:05:10 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor comments: - sec 9.1.1.1: Is there a case where 'received' could be not 'true'. I mean how can you acknowledge something that you didn't receive? - I find the wording used saying "This document registers .." (in the whole document) not fully approrpiate because the main purpose of this doc is the spcification of the usage of these registrations. I would propose the following, e.g. OLD "This document registers "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls." NEW "This document specifies "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls and registers it in section X."
- [Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Randall Gellens